Welcome aboard Commodore Kevin; or is it Admiral. I think you said it all when you offered “in disabled unseaworthy boats were left to live or die”. People who venture out to the open oceans are always at risk. That risk is heightened if the boat is as you say ‘unseaworthy’.

To hold Australia responsible for the seaworthiness of the vast Indonesian fleet of fishing vessels and the sinking of any of that fleet is an exercise in obscurum per obscurius.

“SIEV X is the worst event in a shameful period of Australian official inhumanity to fellow human beings.”

I totally disagree. The Australian government was making every attempt, following the Tampa incident, to stop this movement of asylum seekers. They wanted to see this terribly risky practice of jumping on rickety boats stopped once and for all, for the good of all involved.

I reject the notion that this whole episode was “shameful” on the part of our government. It would have been utterly shameful if they had allowed the continuation of unseaworthy craft sailing towards our shores, with no doubt further SIEV X – type disasters resulting.

We should look back on the SIEV X horror as a powerful indication of why the whole boat people / refugee / asylum seeker issue had to be dealt with, and very strongly so at the time.

“Fortunately the people of Australia are not afraid to honour SIEV X as a major human tragedy in Australia’s history of migration.”

Absolutely. And so it should be remembered, in a very high-profile way on each anniversary.

But in a somewhat different light to yours: Most Australians can see the imperative of the time to halt this asylum-seeker movement to Australia, and to deal with it in very different ways; through the UN, through international aid programs, our official offshore refugee programs, bilateral relations with source countries, assistance from non-government organisations and so on.

“I now believe SIEV X sank at the height of a covert undeclared war between powerful Indonesian national security elements that had encouraged and protected so-called people smugglers in Indonesia …”

Wow!

All the more reason for Australia to take strong action against the whole business then, I would say.

Tony Kevin, I admire your passion and humanity. But half of your expression on this whole subject seems to be missing – the half concerning Australia’s rightful border-protection and rightful stop to the agony that desperate people go through if they think they can simply come to this country outside of formal channels. With respect, it does seem a tad unbalanced.

Both these respondents miss Tony Kevin’s point: that SIEV X and (perhaps) other refugee groups were desperate cases that demanded an immediate humane intervention. His case is that Australia ignored the death of 350 innocent people because they were pawns in a larger international dispute. That is what is ‘a tad unbalanced’. If a man is dying of a heart attack on your doorstep, the response is to give him CPR, not to build a hospital – imperative though that may be.

“My original questions remain unanswered. One day they will be answered”, writes dear old, obsessive Tony who has so little to do he declares an ‘anniversary’ for the drowning of risk-taking would-be illegal entrants to Australia and, as usual, tries to find Australia in some way culpable.

Most Australians have forgotten about the incident, and do not give two hoots about answers.

Tony Kevin like that other Australia-hater, Greg Barnes, is best ignored

We stand at the brink of a world Nuclear crisis and Tony Kevin dredges up......

SIEV X.

No Tony, sorry, it does not matter squat now.

You seem to have the view that we can dredge up every aspect of inhumanity and suddenly like a man who suddenly got 'religion' our government is going to 'see the light'.

There are FAR more pressing examples of inhumanity MUCH closer to home and FAR more FIXABLE than this feable attempt to politicize for the advantage of the Greens, something way out of left field.

I'd rather see the tragedy of Cherbourg town fixed. Restore the infrastructure that the Qld Government ripped out in 86 when it told the aboriginals to 'swim or sink'.

I'd love to see the injustice done to Melbourne Aboriginals who were shuffled from pillar to post and reservation to reservation.. fixed but ...

again.. we hear 'SIEV X'... why ?

Most likely because for some reason escaping most of us, the Greens think it is a winner, when in reality all the persuit of such issues does is confirm the political and social irrelevance of the Greens.
(and the..DEM...hang on..it will come in a moment.. aah..gotit remembered now "Democrats"...)

If you dredge up anything to do with illegal arrivals to Australia, you will get the same counter arguments from us, about why they left countries where they have safety.. to country shop to Australia. Then we go round in circles where you and Marilyn tell us 'They are not illegal' then we tell you "As far as we are concerned they are" then you mutter about the UN this or that, and we say "Change our signatory status to provide for exceptions" and so on.

I would humbly add - nope - forget humility - I would add with arrogant self righteousness - that seems to be the theme here over and over again - that the guy has a point - the answers do need to be found;

I dont hold with the they chose to come here in a leaky boat crap - nor do I care that there may or may not be other things on the horizon - of course I did bag out Greg Barnes for bringing up the republic again as old news - but hey - thats my right

As it is the authros right to dwell no matter how long on the fate of the SIEV X and our role in its demise - that is what we do that is an Australian value - the capacity to canvass many views on many issues and search for a truth.

And your right Boaz D there is an impasse in this debate over asylum seekers - but you are allowed to be right every now and again